1. On May 18, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to recover the amount of KRW 200,000,000, which was paid to the Plaintiff Company A.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. In order to support restructuring of underwater aggregate extraction business, etc., in which it is impossible to continue aggregate extraction business due to the implementation of the four-dimensional housing projects, Article 10(3) of the former Aggregate Extraction Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “ Aggregate Extraction Act”) and Article 2-3 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Aggregate Extraction Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 1, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the Aggregate Extraction Act”) was established on August 16, 2012.

According to the instant implementation guidelines, the subject of restructuring is a person, etc. who intends to discontinue the relevant business among the registered companies of underwater aggregate extraction business as of the date of the public announcement of the implementation plan for the four major projects (hereinafter “base date”), and the scope of support is the dredging line on the registration standards for aggregate extraction business, the purchase of equipment such as screening machines, and the subsidy for discontinuance of business (Article 3). The Defendant is the subject of restructuring support.

(Article IV(1)(b).

The Plaintiffs, who engage in underwater aggregate extraction business, were unable to operate aggregate extraction business as a four-class slaughter business, and applied for a restructuring support pursuant to the instant implementation guidelines, and the Defendant paid a closure support as stated in the following table according to the results of deliberation by the Deliberation Committee on the Appraisal Quantity of Aggregate Extraction Capacity, etc. against the Plaintiffs, according to the deliberation by the deliberation committee on January 31, 2013.

(unit: Won) The indication of “stock company” by the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “stock company”) is omitted.

A rating shall be based on the arithmetic average of the actual results of extraction of aggregate for the last three years before and after the base date of the rating of the amount of recovery of property (the difference between the original calculation and the original calculation) calculated at the time of the evaluation of the capacity to extract aggregate for three years

(see Article 3(2)(3) of the enforcement guidelines of the instant case. The subsidy for discontinuance of business shall be paid.